#22 - Researcher: The role of chemicals called pheromones in

[dshen123]

B: I get that the assumption talks about: perhaps pheromones can affect us, by altering our so-called “voluntary” decisions. B is stated as voluntary action can not have a chemical explanation. What if the chemical can still affect us without a chemical explanation? like it's not explainable or the chemical does indeed has no effect on our voluntary action but this can have a chemical explanation to it? actual effects vs. can or can not be explained ? Am I getting the key point wrong in here?

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your question, dshen123, but the negation of answer B would be that voluntary actions (like the ones humans engage in) can have a chemical explanation (like pheromones). If pheromones can explain our voluntary behavior, then there is no reason to believe that psychological factors have taken over or that "pheromones are merely a vestige of our evolutionary past." They might still be a vital part of what makes us do what we do!

[dshen123]

Will c be correct if it states that animals also have free will? Thank you

[Dana D]

Hey Dshen,

No, answer choice (C) still wouldn't be correct becasue it's not an assumption the author is relying on. To test this, think about the author's conclusion: pheremones and other chemical factors don't control our behavior, they're vestiges of our evolutionary past. And what does the author base this agrument on? The fact that we have free will, and thus voluntarily choose our own behavior. If you added in the information that animals also have free will, you would at best be weakening the author's argument, not identifying an idea that they are relying on.

Instead, you're looking for an answer choice that captures some sort of unstated idea the author is hinging their argument on. Here, that is answer choice (B)- the idea that voluntary actions can't have chemical explanations, they're exclusionary. So because we have free will, our decisions are voluntary and can't be explained by pheremones. If you could have voluntary actions that are explained by chemical explanations, then the author's argument would fall apart. Pheremones wouldn't necessarily be a vestige of our past, they could still be influencing our voluntary choices. In other words, if you negated the assumption of answer choice (B), the argument falls apart. That's how you know it is a neccesary assumption.

Hope that helps!